"some of its construction components raise questions about how much safer it is than what it replaces." So, Paul, were all those $$ billion worth it for a prettier bridge, if it does not improve on the safety of Rosie the Riveter?

[Post removed.]

[Portion removed.] How long will we be paying off the bonds for this frivolous project, which does not increase safety? [Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

I offered up some thoughts about the design of the new span and the existing span, and invited others to provide their thoughts about various aspects of the project, which is a done deal. Glad I have engendered some discussion!

Paul Your various topics end up being controversial which may or may not be a good thing as far as you are concerned. I am not sure what you have been asked to do in these community forums, but unfortunately many people seem to think they have to be antiPaul in their responses. Generally they end up being locked and discussion ends. The last topic to do with MLK's dream speech is a good example of this. So what is your feeling when discussion comes to a stop. Is that a success or a failure? As for this topic, I like you rarely have occasion to cross the bridge. Yes, I do think it looks much nicer, but I am not sure that the old one had no design flare. They are very different bridges to meet the same end. The first is a prime example of 1930s design which was very innovative. I feel sure that if the people then could see a picture of the new bridge they would have been not only awestruck, but incredulous that such a design would work. Given a choice, I feel sure that a 1930s man in the street would cross the old bridge feeling a lot more safe with a design that appeared to make sense rather than the "futuristic" design which needs explanation of how it works.

In the interest of discussion -- I don't regard the old cantilever bridge as ugly. It was quite graceful for its time, and the longest cantilever in the country. That 30's mentality produced many enduring masterpieces -- call me provincial for regarding the Golden Gate as the most beautiful bridge ever built. Rosie the Riveter did not arrive until 1942. While my preference tends toward symmetry, the new span's design is understandable given the limited availability of bedrock. The original replacement proposal looked a lot like the "freeway on stilts" San Mateo or Dumbarton bridges. Besides the aesthetic objections, that design couldn't provide the necessary shipping channel width. A traditional suspension bridge would require a cable anchorage like that hulking mass centered under the western span but resting on silt, so we're back to cantilever or this more interesting "self-anchored" suspension bridge, though most the overall bridge length is still vanilla skyway. Shanghai delivered. Sad commentary that so little of it could be fabricated in the US these days with the exception of the light fixtures and some questionable bolts. I believe that the new bridge is as safe or more so than any other in the area, and I'd rather be on it than in the BART tube during the next big one. Bikes and pedestrians won't be able to reach Yerba Buena Island until at least 2015, maybe San Francisco in my lifetime. On average the Bay Bridge toll has been doubling every ten years since the 80's, but still less than half the Verrazano Narrows'. And speaking of New York, woe to anyone suggesting a replacement for the marvelous Brooklyn Bridge.

Resident, My getting dissed comes with the territory. I generally find it amusing, I comment now and again that my observations are not about me, and in an environment such as this, I have to deal with the pot shot questions and trolls. It is up to the PA Online folks to decide the rules of engagement. Back to the Bridge: there are some good web sites showing how the new bridge looks, juxtaposed to the predecessor. I am not of the opinion that the old bridge did not serve its role for the most part. I am of the opinion that its replacement is an improvement.